Monday 28 July 2014

Caste System

Caste System is the most notorious stick to beat Hinduism – so here I explore its origin, history, similar situation in other parts of the world, current situation, etc.

Word ‘Caste’ is a Portuguese word for ‘lineage, race, breed’ – Hindu original word is Varna

Origin and system prior to first millennium:
There is no mention of birth based caste system in Vedas. “Vedic system of Varnashrama has been mentioned in the Vedic literature in many places, such as in the Purusha Sukta verses of the Rig-veda (Book Ten, Hymn 90). But there is no indication in these verses that say that birth is the essential quality for one’s varna”
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/vedic_literature_says_caste_by_birth_is_unjust.htm

Central concept of Hinduism being debate and discussion – one story in Mahabharata relates to discussion between Sages Brigu and Bharadwaja on counters of division of labour:

“ All the four orders, therefore, have always the right to the performance of all pious duties and of sacrifices. Even thus were the four orders at first created equal by Brahman who ordained for all of them (the observances disclosed in) the words of Brahma (in the Vedas)”
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12b015.htm

Mahabharata mentions “It has been heard by us that in days of old a Sudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in one of his sacrifices) consisting of a hundred thousand Purnapatras, according to the ordinance called Aindragni…….For this reason all the four orders are holy. All the orders bear towards one another to relation of consanguinity, through the intermediate classes. They have all sprung from Brahmanas.”” 
Meaning that in times prior to Mahabharata, Sudras were performing sacrifices and were rich and their origin was considered as one. Though in the same section of Mahabharata Sudra are reduced to servants to the three superior castes.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a059.htm
(In fact, Dr. BR Ambedkar has formed a complete new thesis based on the above single verse of Mahabharta on the origins of Shudras – his views are presented later in write-up).

In the beginning, there was only one varna in the ancient Indian society. "We were all brahmins or all sudras," says Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (1.4, 11-5, 1.31) and also Mahabharata (12.188). A smrti text says that one is born a sudra, and through purification he becomes a brahmin. According to Bhagavada Gita, varna is conferred on the basis of the intrinsic nature of an individual, which is a combination of three gunas (qualities): sattva, rajas, and tamas. In the Mahabharata SantiParva, Yudhisthira defines a brahmin as one who is truthful, forgiving, and kind. He clearly points out that a brahmin is not a brahmin just because he is born in a brahmin family, nor is a sudra a sudra because his parents are sudras. The same concept is mentioned in Manu Smrti. Another scripture Apastamba Dharmasutra states that by birth every human being is a sudra. It is by education and upbringing that one becomes 'twice born', that is, a dvija.
Manu sums up the relative status and functions of the varnas in the following verse of Manu Smrti: "The brahmin acquires his status by his knowledge, the ksatriya by his martial vigor, the vaisya by wealth; and the sudra by birth alone." In the Bhagavada Gita, 4.13, Krsna says: "The fourfold varna has been created by Me according to the differentiation of guna (qualities)."
In Bhagavada Gita 18.41, Krsna states: "The devotees of the Lord are not sudras; sudras are they who have no faith in the Lord whichever be their varna." Mahabharata says that a wise man should not slight even an outcaste if he is devoted to the Lord; he who looks down on him will fall into hell. SantiParva, Mahabharata also says that there is no superior varna. The universe is the work of the Immense Being. The beings created by him were only divided into varnas according to their aptitude.
Bhagavada Gita also says, "Of brahmins, ksatriyas and vaisyas, as also the sudras, O Arjuna, and the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature." Manu Smrti (11.157) says, "Just as a wooden toy elephant cannot be a real elephant, and a stuffed deer cannot be a real deer, so, without studying scriptures and the Vedas and the development of intellect, a brahmin by birth cannot be considered a brahmin."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/varna-and-caste-system-of_b_877981.html?section=india

 The above quotations and references point out that the varnas were designated to a person based on one's aptitude, quality, mental state and characteristic.
Caste system was not based on chance of taking birth in a particular family. There was movement of people from one caste to another – meaning it was not rigid. This can also be seen in the following examples :

Vyäsa, a brahmin sage and the most revered author of many Vedic scriptures including the Vedas, Mahabharata, Bhagavada Gita and Bhagavata Purana, was the son of Satyavati, a sudra woman. Vyäsa's profound knowledge of the Vedic wisdom established him as a brahmin even though he was born of a sudra mother.

Vyäsa's father, Päräsara, was also a son of a candala woman and yet was considered a brahmin based on his Vedic wisdom.

Another popular Vedic sage, Välmiki was initially a hunter. He came to be known as a brahmin sage on the basis of his profound knowledge of the scriptures and his authorship of the Rämäyana.

According to Rig Veda (IX.112.3), the poet refers to his diverse parentage: "I am a reciter of hymns, my father is a physician and my mother grinds corn with stones. We desire to obtain wealth in various actions."

Sage Aitareya, author of Aitareya Upanisad, was born of a sudra woman. Vasishtha, son of a prostitute, was established as a brahmin and Rig Veda book VII is attributed to him.

In Chandogya Upanisad, the honesty of Satyakäma establishes his brahminhood, even though his ancestry is unknown as he is the son of a maidservant.

Visvamitra, born in a ksatriya family becomes a sage, and hence a brahmin, based on his asceticism. Some Rig Veda hymns are attributed to him.

The priest Vidathin Bhärdväja became a ksatriya as soon as he was adopted by King Bharata and his descendents were the well-known Bharata ksatriyas.

Janaka, a ksatriya by birth, attained the rank of a brahmin by virtue of his ripe wisdom and saintly character and is considered a rajarishi (king-sage).

Vidura, a brahmin visionary, who gave religious and moral instructions to King Dhrtarashtra, was born to a woman servant of the palace. His varna as a brahmin was determined on the basis of his wisdom and knowledge of scriptures.

The Kauravas and Pandavas were the descendants of Satyavati, a fisher-woman, and Vyäsa, a brahmin. In spite of this mixed heredity, the Kauravas and Pandavas were known as ksatriyas on the basis of their occupation.

Ajamidha and Puramidha were admitted to the status of the brahmin class, and even composed Vedic hymns.

Yaska, in his Nirukta, tells us that of two brothers, Santanu and Devapi, one becomes a ksatriya king and the other a brahmin priest.

Kavasa, the son of the slave girl Ilusa, becomes a brahmin priest.

The Bhagavata Purana tells of the elevation of the ksatriya clan named Dhastru to brahminhood.

In the later Vedic times, Chandragupta Maurya, originally from the Muria tribe, goes on to become the famous Mauryan emperor of Magadha. Similarly, his descendant, King Asoka, was the son of a maidservant.

The Sanskrit poet and author, Kalidasa is also not known to be a brahmin by birth. His works are considered among the most important Sanskrit works.

In the medieval period, saint Thiruvalluvar, author of 'Thirukural' was a weaver.

Other saints such as Kabir, Sura Dasa, Ram Dasa and Tukaram came from the sudra class also.

Many of the great visionaries in modern India were not brahmins by birth but can be regarded as brahmins by their life-styles and teachings: Mahätmä Gändhi, Swämi Vivekänada, Sri Aurobindo, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swämi Chinmayänanda etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/varna-and-caste-system-of_b_877981.html?section=india


Some other notable examples are :
a. Ailush Rishi was son of a Daasi, gambler and of low character. However he researched on Rigveda and made several discoveries. Not only was he invited by Rishis but also made an Acharya. (Aitareya Brahman 2.19)
b. Satyakaam Jaabaal was son of a prostitute but became a Brahmin.
c. Prishadh was son of King Daksha but became a Shudra. Further he did Tapasya to achieve salvation after repenting. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.14)
Had Tapasya been banned for Shudra as per the fake story from Uttar Ramayan, how could Prishadh do so?
d. Nabhag, soon of King Nedishtha became Vaishya. Many of his sons again became Kshatriya. (Vishnu Puran 4.1.13)
e. Dhrist was son of Nabhag (Vaishya) but became Brahmin and his son became Kshatriya (VP 4.2.2)
f. Further in his generation, some became Brahmin again (VP 9.2.23)
g. As per Bhagvat, Agniveshya became Brahmin though born to a king.
h. Rathotar born in Kshatriya family became a Brahmin as per Vishnu Puran and Bhagvat.
i. Haarit became Brahmin though born to Kshatriya (VP 4.3.5)
j. Shaunak became Brahmin though born in Kshatriya family. (VP 4.8.1). In fact, as per Vayu Puran, Vishnu Puran and Harivansh Puran, sons of Shaunak Rishi belonged to all four Varnas.
Similar examples exist of Gritsamad, Veethavya and Vritsamati.
k. Matanga was son of Chandal but became a Brahmin.
l. Raavan was born from Pulatsya Rishi but became a Rakshas.
m. Pravriddha was son of Raghu King but became a Rakshas.
n. Trishanku was a king but became a Chandal
o. Sons of Vishwamitra became Shudra. Vishwamitra himself was a Kshatriya who later became a Brahmin.
p. Krishna is a Yadava which was considered a backward caste.

Buddha too testifies to the fact of outcast's son reaching higher position in society so much
that warriors(kshatriyas) and brahmans went to attend on him :

"22. "Know ye by the example I now cite (the fact that by birth one is not an outcast). There was an outcast's son, Sopaka, who became known as Matanga.
23. "This Matanga attained the highest fame so difficult to gain. Many were the warriors(kshatriyas) and brahmans who went to attend on him.
24. "Mounting the celestial chariot (the Noble Eightfold path, and driving) along the passion-free high road, (Sopaka, now a monk), reached the Brahma realm having given up sense desires.
25. "His (lowly) birth did not prevent him from being reborn in the Brahma realm. There are brahmans born in the family of preceptors, kinsmen of (veda) hymns."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya.html

Shudra Emperor : 

India’s history gets recorded from the time of Alexander’s invasion. His army refused to proceed further into India as they had heard of the mighty Kingdom of Nandas of Magdha. Now these Nandas were the first ones to form the large and rich empire in India and incidentally its founder – Mahapadma Nanda was called a Shudra King being born from a Shudra mother. Their reign lasted for over 100 years and Mahapadma Nanda was called ‘Slayer of Kashtriyas’ as he defeated all other Kashtriya Kings of Northern and Central India.
He would not have ruled such a vast empire without the active support of other classes, especially the higher ones, of society – meaning caste system as we are made to imagine now, was not there in society.
His successor Dhana Nanda was overthrown by Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya because he grew unpopular and not because of his low caste origins.

Equality :
J. Muir has provided numerous passages from ancient Indian texts to demonstrate the equality of varnas.
Rig Veda II. 33. 13 speaks of "our father Manu" (pita nah). Note that all of mankind is described as having a single ancestor.
Taittareya Brahmana II.3.8.1. It describes the process of creation of human beings by Prajapati as follows: "... he reflected, after that he created men. That constitutes the manhood of men. He, who knows the manhood of men, becomes intelligent. Mind does not forsake him."
Satapatha Brahmana VII.5.2.6. This passage describes the process of creation of human beings by Prajapati as follows: "He formed animals from his breath, a man from his soul, a horse from his eye, a bull from his breath, a sheep from his ear, a goat from his voice." It is worth noting that here too the various objects of creation are being correlated to various parts of the body of Prajapati, as in the Purusa Sukta.
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad I. 4. 11-15. These passages describe the successive creation of the four varnas, in contrast to their simultaneous creation in the Purusa Sukta. Just as in the case of Manu where all of humanity is traced to a single parent, here all of humanity is traced to a single homogeneous class, to begin with.
Visnu Purana VIII. 138-140. According to this account when the Eden-like existence ceased: "At this juncture the perfect mind-born sons of Brahma, of different dispositions, who had formerly existed in the Satya age, were reproduced in the Treta as brahmins, ksatriyas, vaisyas, sudras, and destructive men." This means that the varna system characterises human life after the 'fall', as it were. It is a post-Lapsarian phenomenon. The development of 'castes' here represents a falling away from an earlier ideal condition, in which there were no varnas.
In Bhagavada Gita, it is clearly mentioned that sudra and women can achieve the liberation and it is not just limited to any one high caste.
Upanisads and other Vedic scriptures have mentioned at many places that the same Brahman exists in all the living beings and hence all are equal.
Mahabharata (III.216.14-15) mentions that a sudra can become brahmin by engaging in self-control, truth and righteousness.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/varna-and-caste-system-of_b_877981.html?section=india


Shudras not allowed to study religious texts – Shambuka incident : 

This incident is one of the rallying points of Dalit movement. Even if Rama is a mythical character, having such an incident in a religious text becomes a reference point to subjugate low caste people. How have other Hindu scholars since ancient times reacted to it? I have not come across any Hindu scholar who has been proud of this incident; rather effort is on since ancient times to wriggle out of this unpleasant incident. Following excuses or facts have been provided to explain this unfortunate incident : 
1. A later addition to the original text
2. Occurs in only one of the 14 versions of Sanskrit Ramayanas 
3. Denying penance to low caste cannot be possible as the whole Ramayana starts from the curse of the similar low caste ascetic – when Dahsratha kills Shravana by mistake and goes to his blind parents, apologizing for his actions. Had penance been not allowed to low caste – there was no need of apologizing and no strength in curse. 
4. Not included in the most popular Ramayana Texts like Ramchirtamanas.
“Shambuka was problematic for early Hindu authors. Bhavabhuti(c. 7th century) is clearly uncomfortable with the story in his Uttara Rama Charita,[6] while Kalidasa (c. 4th century) mentions the incident of Shambuka without any comment in his Raghuvamsa.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shambuka

for scholarly discussion on Shambuka and other Hindu literature read : 
http://www.siddha.com.my/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1241

Caste System in first Millennium:
The movement of people from one caste to the other, based on their skills, became rare - Transgression of from one caste to another was discouraged.
This is further proved by two different genetic studies :
“Researchers found that people from different genetic populations in India began mixing about 4,200 years ago, but the mingling stopped around 1,900 years ago, according to the analysis published today (Aug. 8) in the American Journal of Human Genetics.”
http://m.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html

"This study, using DNA data, estimated that the transition in India from free intermarriage to endogamy took place about 70 generations ago; that is, about 1,600 years ago. Leafing through the pages of Indian history, one finds that during this time the Gupta empire, founded by Maharaja Sri Gupta, covered much of the Indian sub-continent, with Pataliputra (near Patna) as the capital of the empire. A lot of social transformation took place during the Gupta period. Notable among these was the enforcement of social strictures against marriage between castes, as enshrined in the Dharmasastra. This reveals that some social norms leave imprints on the DNA of people, which can be reconstructed by careful genetic studies," the finding reveals.”

This may have been under the influence of much maligned Manu Smiriti.
Manu Smiriti, apart from classifying people into castes, covered whole gamut of society ‘Code of Human Ethics’. “Friedrich Nietzsche greatly preferred the ‘healthier, higher, wider world’ of the Hindu social code.

Mânava-Dharma-Shâstra (‘Code of Human Ethics’), also known as Manu-Smrti (‘Manu’s Classic’), to ‘the Christian sick-house and dungeon atmosphere” For detailed insight into Manu Smiriti, visit the link: http://www.academia.edu/4034270/Manu_as_a_weapon_against_egalitarianism_Nietzsche_and_Hindu_political_philosophy

Each caste had its specified duties, rights and punishments. There was no discrimination between organized classes – Shudras were important part of society.

Hindu Society at the end of first millennium :
Al Beruni, a reknowned Islamic scholar visited India around 1000 AD and wrote a book (India) on social, cultural and scientific matters of Hindus. Following are his observations on Caste System as practiced by Hindus :

“T'he kings of antiquity, who were industriously devoted to the duties of their office, spent most of their care on the division of their subjects into different classes and orders, which they tried to preserve from intermixture and disorder. Therefore they forbade people of different classes to have intercourse with each other, and laid upon each class a particular kind of work or art and handicraft. They did not allow anybody to transgress the limits of his class, and even punished those who would not be content with their class.

All this is well illustrated by the history of the ancient Chosroes (Khusran), for they had created great institutions of this kind, which could not be broken through by the special merits of any individual nor by bribery.” 

This is his general observation about all kings of past especially of Persian empire.

“Between the latter two classes (Vaisha & Shudra) there is no very great distance. Much, however, as these classes differ from each other, they live together in the same towns and villages, mixed together in the same houses and lodgings.”

But there were people who were left out of caste system and were classified as per their profession :

”These eight guilds are the fuller, shoemaker, juggler, the basket and shield maker, the sailor, fisherman, the hunter of wild animals and of birds, and the weaver.

The four castes do not live together with them in one and the same place.

These guilds live near the villages and towns of the four castes, but outside them.“

“The people called Hadi, Doma (Domba), Candala,and Badhatau (sic) are not reckoned amongst any caste or guild. They are occupied with dirty work, like the cleansing of the villages and other services. They are considered as one sole class, and distinguished only by their occupations. In fact, they are considered like illegitimate children”

“The worst of all are the Badhatau, who not only devour the flesh of dead animals, but even of dogs and other beasts.”

“Whilst according to the Hindu philosophers, liberation is common to all castes and to the whole human race, if their intention of obtaining it is perfect. This view is based on the saying of Vyasa”

" Learn to know the twenty-five things thoroughly. Then you may follow whatever religion you like; you will no doubt be liberated."

This view is also based on the fact that Vasudeva (Krishna) was a descendant of a Sudra family, and also on the following saying of his, which he addressed to Arjuna:
“God distributes recompense without injustice and without partiality. He reckons the good as bad if people in doing good forget him; he reckons the bad as good if people in doing bad remember him and do not forget him, whether those people be Vaisya or Sudra or women. How much more will this be the case when they are Brahmana or Kshatriya."

“V. 17 Know that he who does this during seven consecutive years with pious intention, strong belief, and confidence, possesses at the end of them the whole earth and the ocean which surrounds it on the four sides, if he is a Kshatriya.
V. 18.—If he is a Brahman, he obtains his wishes, learns the Veda, obtains a beautiful wife, and gets noble children from her. If he is a Vaisya, he obtains much landed property and acquires a glorious lordship. If he is a Sudra, he will obtain wealth. All of them obtain health and safety, the cessation of injuries, and the realisation of reward." This is Varahamihira's statement regarding the offering to Suhail.”

“From the jugs they also derive prognostics as to the different castes. The northern jug refers to the Brahman, the eastern to the Kshatriya, the southern to the Vaisya, and the western to the Sudra.”

“Sudra or a Vaisya is proved to have recited the Veda, he is accused by the Brahmans before the ruler, and the latter will order his tongue to be cut off. However, the meditation on God, works of piety, and almsgiving are not forbidden to him.”

“Every man who takes to some occupation which is not allowed to his caste, as, e.g. a Brahman to trade, a Sudra to agriculture, commits a sin or crime, which they consider only a little less than the crime of theft.”

“All these things originate in the difference of the classes or castes, one set of people treating the others as fools. This apart, all men are equal to each other, as Vasudeva says regarding him who seeks salvation: " In the judgment of the intelligent man, the Brahman and the Candala are equal, the friend and the foe, the faithful and the deceitful, nay, even the serpent and the weasel. If to the eyes of intelligence all things are equal, to ignorance they appear as separated and different."”

Sudras were allowed to take interest on lending money and were allowed to drink wine – which was prohibited to others.

Al Beruni’s India.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/cul/texts/ldpd_5949073_001/pages/ldpd_5949073_001_00000155.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize&top=&left=

Reviewing the above references of Al Beruni’s India – one can conclude the following at the end of millinium :

Caste was no longer flexible ie it became rigid.
The lowest rung of people were NOT based on racial division but rather on moral division – as low caste were considered to be progeny of inter caste marriage.- this is result of the Manu’s code.
Lower status people were also due to the association with ‘dirty work’.
There was no discrimination as far as religion was concerned – as every class of people stand a chance to be liberated.
Meaning the code of ‘Manu Smiriti’ was selectively used to suit the society’s need. Al Beruni also mentions in his book
“Hindu laws, are derived from their rishis, the pillars of their religion and not from the prophets i.e. Narayana.. "Narayana only comes into this world in the form of human figure to set the world right when things have gone wrong. HINDUS CAN EASILY ABROGATE THEIR LAWS FOR THEY BELIEVE SUCH CHANGES ARE NECESSITATED BY THE CHANGE OF NATURE OF MAN. Many things which are now forbidden were allowed before". (Sachau:106-7)

Interesting explanation for the origin of caste system (maybe there is truth in them): 

- Caste system is segregation (ie separation of pure from impure) of people to maintain purity of their class -which is rooted in biological reality - evolutionary process has made man fear polluting themselves from unclean things like rotten corpses, dead bodies, bad food etc., that can cause diseases. Social systems / religions hijacked these biological systems of having disgust and turned it against certain group of people that dealt with unclean jobs.  

- “Did Ahmisa cause a professional monopoly driven caste system to ossify and metamorphose into a system of segregation?

“If 'do not kill' and 'do not even hurt animals' principle is taken to the logical extreme, the pure vegetarians (brahmins?) would shun those whose economic survival depends on killing animals, creating leather, fishing, eating meat, etc (untouchables?). The cattlemen, the farmers, the workers cause more unavoidable injury than say those who sit and read and meditate on ideas/sutras, or who count money/merchants. The warrior group would have needed a carve out rituals to absolve the 'kill and injure’ others with just cause.

If it isn't the emphasis of Ahimsa as the highest virtue, what has the basis for a hierarchy? Why is a person who earns a living by hunting or fishing or processing meat or producing leather or dealing with dead bodies lower or shunned, than say a farmer or tool maker or pottery maker or a merchant?” – Dr. Elst

-       Caste system or division of labor and denial of intermixing was also to have stability in society as Al Beruni notes in reference to Persian Empire : “T'he kings of antiquity, who were industriously devoted to the duties of their office, spent most of their care on the division of their subjects into different classes and orders, which they tried to preserve from intermixture and disorder. Therefore they forbade people of different classes to have intercourse with each other, and laid upon each class a particular kind of work or art and handicraft. They did not allow anybody to transgress the limits of his class, and even punished those who would not be content with their class”
-        Here Al Beruni quotes Vasudeva from Gita : " If each member of these castes adheres to his customs and usages, he will obtain the happiness he wishes for, supposing that he is not negligent in the worship of God, not forgetting to remember him in his most important avocations. But if anybody wants to quit the works and duties of his caste and adopt those of another caste, even if it would bring a certain honour to the latter, it is a sin, because it is a transgression of the rule."

Comparative System prevalent in other parts of the world (one cannot discuss anything with absolute - it has to be compared with other systems prevalent at other places at those times) :

- Earliest case of division of labour of society is found in the codes of Hammurabi at Babylonia in around 1800 bc where society was divided into elites, commoners and slaves.
http://www.livescience.com/39393-code-of-hammurabi.html
Caste system similar to Hindus was prevalent in Persia :
“When Ardashir ben Babak restored the Persian empire, he also restored the classes or castes of the population in the following way :—
The first class were the knights and princes.
The second class the monks, the fire-priests, and the lawyers.
The third class the physicians, astronomers, and other men of science.
The fourth class the husbandmen and artisans.
And within these classes there were subdivisions, distinct from each other, like the species within a genus.”
- Al Beruni’s India

Caste system and untouchability remained alive in the following societies :
Gypsies in India and Europe
Burakumin in Japan
Baekjeong in Korea
Cagots in France
Dalit in South Asia
Ragyabpa in Tibet
Akhdam in Islamic Yemen
China's jianmin
In all cases, the shunned untouchables worked with dead bodies, or killed animals, fished, worked with leather, etc.
”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untouchability

“Ragyabpa - Untouchables[edit]
The ragyabpa or untouchable caste were the lowest level, and they performed the 'unclean' work. This included fishermen, butchers, executioners, corpse disposers, blacksmiths, goldsmiths and prostitutes. Ragyabpa were also divided into three divisions: for instance a goldsmith was in the highest untouchable class, and was not regarded as being as defiled as an executioner, who was in the lowest.

They were regarded as both polluted and polluting, membership of the caste was hereditary, and escape from the untouchable status was not possible.[16]”

So Caste System or untouchability / discrimination was a universal phenomena based on the ‘dirty work’

Hindus did not have a slave system which was prevalent in most of the other parts of the world. Now on one hand u have people with less privileges but r free and on the other hand in slave system – one human is owning the other human without any rights. Slave can be bought or sold or raped as desired.

Caste System in second millennium :
As mentioned in the following write-up :https://www.facebook.com/raman.sehgal.92/posts/10202006091185192?notif_t=like
Any system, howsoever good it may be, if it does not change with times - it ceases to be good - as beautifully mentioned in famous lines from Alfred, Lord Tennyson – “The old order changeth yielding place to new And God fulfills himself in many ways Lest one good custom should corrupt the world” – meaning old order needs to change with time and in case it does not – the good custom at a particular time will cease to be good and becomes corrupt. This is true for all times.

This is exactly what happened – customs that were good at the particular time – could not change – as external environment was not conducive – hindu religion got internalized, became rigid – in order to protect it from Islamic and thereafter British onslaught – so the concept of caste system became corrupt – as there were no more debates / discussions - (oxygen for a healthy society) and society became rigid. The society that was changing its laws to the need of the times till 1000 AD – stopped doing so because now the primary purpose was survival. Debates / discussions are always the product of the peace and stability. The effect was that lowest rung of society suffered the consequences - again this was not unique to Hinduism.

Hindus who converted to Christianity and Islam – to ‘escape’ Hindu Caste System were relegated to the different caste system within Christian and Islamic societies. So Caste System was not sole perverse of Hinduism.

In fact these converted muslims too show discrimination towards low caste hindus in an Islamic State of Pakistan :


Fact is the caste like structures exist in multiracial societies, and its purpose is to preserve racial purity of the fair race peoples.

e.g Casta system in Brazil. Even today, Hispanic origin communities, pure spanish and all, still do not marry other races, mixed, natives and blacks.

Apart from Slave System – western world was divided into Classes – where high class people looked down upon low class people. Nobles usually married within nobility and commoners were there to serve them.

Modern Age :
It were Hindus who started the reform movement by referring to the basic texts of Hinduism – as Vedas, etc did not have heredity caste system.

Gandhi – the most famous Hindu of last century – is on record saying that he condemns caste system and in case there is any mention of it in any holy book – than he would prefer to burn that book. – this statement means a lot – that Hindus r ready to make amends to the ills – they r ready to look in – reflect and change according to the changing times.

In 1947 when after 1000 years, Hindu’s regained political power – a Dalit, Dr. BR Ambedkar was made the Chairman of the Drafting committee of Constitution of India. Apart from adult franchise - low castes were positively discriminated and untouchability made a crime. The situation now is that one cannot even call a low caste person by his ‘jati’ name – that itself will result in non-bail able warrants.

Just for comparison – blacks were given voting rights only in 1965.

The result is that Caste system is almost non-existent in urban areas except in matrimonial issues. In most urban middle class house holds – it is low caste women who make food and do other chores – I have not seen anyone refusing to eat in any restaurants because of low caste  workers. The caste system is still prevalent in rural areas and I am witness to the fact that it is decreasing at fast rate. My village dalit friends who were poor and considered untouchable 3 decades ago are proud owners of cars and have jobs and don’t care much about high caste village folks as they are now economically independent.

The decrease in caste system would have been at a faster pace but for socialist policies – recently I was reading articles of Dalit Entrepreneurs – who r owning companies worth hundreds of crores – they are keeping high caste hindus– as drivers, gardners, cooks, etc. – their remedy is capitalistic policies - so that there is more movement of people and where only determined factor is one’s skill. This will eliminate caste system but will instead create ‘class system’ – which I think is OK – we can never have a totally egalitarian society – that can only be in books or our dreams.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/Manifesto-to-end-caste-Push-capitalism-and-industrialisation-to-eradicate-this-pernicious-system/articleshow/18136744.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/To-empower-dalits-do-away-with-Indias-antiquated-retail-trading-system/articleshow/17482382.cms
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-dalit-entrepreneurship-can-change-the-communitys-social-status-chandra-bhan-prasad-1906759

Watch the discussion on the topic :
But is caste system that bad? Obviously looking down upon the people at the lower rung is bad and so is not letting anyone with better skill to move up the ladder. Here is an article by an American longing for Caste System : http://www.amerika.org/darwinism/the-caste-system/.

“[caste system] offered a lot of communal togetherness, social security and a certain pride in one’s caste identity. Through the missionary propaganda, we have come to see caste as an exclusion-from, but in the first place it is a belonging-to. Even for the lowest castes, humiliation by higher placed people on account of caste did not outweigh the considerable benefits of belonging to at least some caste. This caste cohesion is an important reason why Hinduism could survive where the cultures of West Asia disappeared under the onslaught of Islam.”

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.in/2015/12/st-thomas-and-anti-brahminism.html


Apart, there have been numerous Dalit / Shudra Saints over all ages who are considered holy by Hindus of all Castes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_saints_of_Hinduism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shudra_Hindu_saints

So the issue was / is not of being born in a low caste family but to attain higher consciousness – which can be attained by anyone irrespective of his/ her birth – as attested by the ancient texts.

Dr. Ambedkar, in his monumental book “Who Were the Shudras?” tries to solve the following riddle of Shudras in ancient Hindu literature :   
(1)  The Shudras are alleged to be non-Aryans, hostile to the Aryans, whom the Aryans are said to have conquered and made slaves. How is it then that the rishis of the Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda should wish glory to the Shudras and express a desire to be in favour of the Shudras?
(2)  The Shudras are said not to have the right to study the Vedas. How is it then that Sudas, a Shudra, was the composer of the hymns of the Rig Veda?
(3)  The Shudras are said to have no right to perform sacrifices. How is it that Sudas performed the Ashva-Medha sacrifice? Why does the Satapatha Brahmana treat the Shudra as a sacrificer and give the formula of addressing him?
(4)  The Shudras are said not to have the right to Upanayana. If this was so from the very beginning, why should there be a controversy about it? Why should Badari and the Samskara Ganpati say that he has a right to Upanayana?
(5)  The Shudra is not permitted to accumulate property. How is it that the Maitrayani and Kathaka Samhitas speak of the Shudras being rich and wealthy?
(6)  The Shudra is said to be unfit to become an officer of the State. How is it then that the Mahabharata speaks of Shudras being ministers to kings?  
(7)  It is said that the duty of the Shudra is to serve, in the capacity of a menial, the three Vamas. How is it then that there were kings among the Shudras as testified by the case of Sudas and other cases mentioned by Say ana?
(8)  If the Shudra had no right to study the Vedas, if he had no right to Upanayana, if he had no right to sacrifice, why was he not given the right to have his Upanayana, to read the Vedas and to perform sacrifice?
(9)  The performance of Upanayana of the Shudra, his learning to read the Vedas, his performing the sacrifices, whether they were of any value to the Shudra or not, were certainly occasions of benefit to the Brahmins in as much as it is the Brahmins,  who had the monopoly of officiating at ceremonies and of teaching the Vedas. It is the Brahmins who stood to earn large fees by allowing the Shudra the right to Upanayana, the performance of sacrifices and the reading of the Vedas. Why were the Brahmins so determined to deny these concessions to the Shudras, when granting them would have done no harm and would have increased their own earnings?
(10)   Even if the Shudra had no right to Upanayana, sacrifices and Vedas, it was open to the Brahmins to concede him these rights. Why were these questions not left to the free will of the individual Brahmins? Why were penalties imposed upon a Brahmin if he did any of these prohibited acts?

Dr. Ambedkar bases his solution on the following facts :

Verses 38-40 of Chapter 60 of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata. It reads as follows :
"It has been heard by us that in the days of old a Shudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in his own sacrifice) consisting of a hundred thousand Purnapatras according to the ordinance called Aindragni."

 From above it is certain that Paijavana, an ancient character, was a Shudra  

Now who was Paijavana?
Yaska's Nirukta seems to give us a clue. In Nirukta ii.24 Yaska Says:
"The seer Vishvamitra was the purohita of Sudas, the son of Pijavana, Vishvamitra, friend of all. All, moving together. Sudas a bountiful giver. Paijavana, son of Pijavana. Again Pi-javana one whose speed is enviable or whose gait is inimitable."

Now who was Sudas ?

Sudas was one of the major kings of the Vedic times :

Rig Veda, vii. 18.22.— "Praising the liberality of Sudas, the grandson of Devavata, the son of Paijavana, the donor of two hundred cows, and of two chariots with two wives, I, worthy (of the gift), circumambulate thee, Agni, like the ministrant priest in the chamber (of sacrifice)"
 Rig Veda, vii.18.23.— "Four (horses), having golden trappings, going steadily on a difficult road, celebrated on the earth, the excellent and acceptable gifts (made) to me by Sudas, the son of Pijavana; bear me as a son (to obtain) food and progeny."
Rig Veda, vii. 18.24.— "The seven worlds praise (Sudas) as if he were Indra; him whose fame (spreads) through the spacious heaven and earth; who, munificent, has distributed (wealth) on every eminent person, and (for whom) the flowing (rivers) have destroyed Yudhyamadhi in war."
Rig Veda, vii.18.25.— "Maruts, leaders (of rites), attend upon this (prince) as you did upon Divodasa, the father of Sudas: favour the prayers of the devout son of Pijavana, and may his strength be unimpaired, undecaying."


Meaning Sudas, a Shudra, was a Vedic King who performed religious distributed gifts just like any Kashtriya King.

Joining the dots from above, Dr. Ambedkar concludes :

(1)  The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar race.
(2)  There was a time when the Aryan society recognised only three Varnas, namely. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.
(3)  The Shudras did not form a separate Varna. They ranked as part of the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan society.
(4)  There was a continuous feud between the Shudra kings and the Brahmins in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and indignities.
(5)  As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras generated by their tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to perform the Upanayana of the Shudras.
(6)  Owing to the denial of Upanayana, the Shudras who were Kshatriyas became socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyasand thus came to form the fourth Varna.
http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/38A.%20Who%20were%20the%20Shudras%20Preface.htm


In case the above is true – so y is there is problem of caste system in India?

Cultural anthropologist Arjun Appadurai wrote in 1993 about how caste and religion based divisions of modern India are to a large extent the product of the classifying tendencies of the British rulers.
By the nineteenth century, strategies of counting bodies had become popular in England to understand human and social sciences. However in India, as highlighted by Appadurai, numbers carried with them the pragmatic purpose of disciplining what the colonial rulers considered to be ‘strange’ ways of the brown masses.
In the aftermath of the 1857 riots, the British colonial office in India came to the realisation that in order to best govern Indian society, they needed to learn more about the unique religious and social order that had been preexisting. What ensued was a grand program of utilitarian knowledge building that sought to explain the peculiarity of the exotic land that they needed to administer in order to make optimum economic gains.
This was done through instruments of knowledge gathering such as census, gazettes, maps and so on. These instruments were made use of by the British even before the 1857 riots, but more for the sake of revenue collection. Post-1857 a disciplining role was attached to them.
The first census was held in 1871 and caste was made the foremost basis to it. The British came to the conclusion that Indian society would become intelligible to them by enumerating its population on the basis of caste. The census first counted and then classified and ranked the people of India on the basis of caste.
This is not to say that classification of Indian society on the basis of caste was something that was built upon the whims and fancies of the colonisers. Caste was a definite reality of Indian society. When the foreigners faced the trouble of classifying and ranking these categories in the census they approached the dominant learned section of Indian society which consisted of the Brahmins.
The Brahmins pointed out to texts and scriptures which they believed to be essential to Hinduism. Modern Hindu social order as we know it today is a result of the collaborative efforts between the British and the Brahmins made in the late nineteenth century. Together they did not create the caste system. They simply attached numerical values and ranks to caste identities and made official the hierarchical divisions of Indian society.

 

 










Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)